Primary Navigation

ascham

... Just a note... As far as I know, the Toxophillus is the only period source in English, for those of us also playing the A&S game, although there is one

Message 1 of 12
, Dec 2, 2000

0 Attachment

> Ashams book "Toxophillus" offers some insight, but was
> written well after the great age of the longbow and is the writing of an
> academics tutor, not a great military archer. It is a wonderful book and
> a must have for any student of archery.but it is not the final word or
> by any means the complete story. We all seem to quote from it as if it
> is the word of God. It is just another source. -Geoffrei

Just a note...
As far as I know, the Toxophillus is the only period source
in English, for those of us also playing the A&S game,
although there is one translated 'Arab Archery' book (the
original is from around 1500) which is worth finding. Which
is not to say there isn't other good Medieval imput, but
it's single pictures or accounts of battles, mostly.
If I recall correctly, Ascham suggests going to the fletcher
for good arrows, and doesn't get into arrow making in any
detail. So I guess it's mostly conjecture for us - sigh.
--
Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe, OP
Known as a forester of the Greenwood, Midrealmhttp://web.raex.com/~agincort

Ken and Jenn

Ian, just to add a few period sources in english (after translation). Saracen Archery which is a translation of a Malamute work on archery from 1365 and

Message 2 of 12
, Dec 2, 2000

0 Attachment

Ian, just to add a few period sources in english (after translation).
"Saracen Archery" which is a translation of a Malamute work on archery
from 1365 and "Peri Toxeas" which is a work on archery from ~7th-8th century
covering Byzantine archery. This, according to the translator, is the
earliest known work on archery.

Note that "Toxophillus" is not only one of the first works on archery,
but was the first book printed in English.

Nicetas

At 08:09 AM 12/2/00 -0500, you wrote:

>> Ashams book "Toxophillus" offers some insight, but was
>> written well after the great age of the longbow and is the writing of an
>> academics tutor, not a great military archer. It is a wonderful book and
>> a must have for any student of archery.but it is not the final word or
>> by any means the complete story. We all seem to quote from it as if it
>> is the word of God. It is just another source. -Geoffrei
>
>Just a note...
>As far as I know, the Toxophillus is the only period source
>in English, for those of us also playing the A&S game,
>although there is one translated 'Arab Archery' book (the
>original is from around 1500) which is worth finding. Which
>is not to say there isn't other good Medieval imput, but
>it's single pictures or accounts of battles, mostly.
>If I recall correctly, Ascham suggests going to the fletcher
>for good arrows, and doesn't get into arrow making in any
>detail. So I guess it's mostly conjecture for us - sigh.
>--
>Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe, OP
>Known as a forester of the Greenwood, Midrealm
> http://web.raex.com/~agincort
>
>
>Get medieval at Mad Macsen's
>http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
>Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
>[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>
>
>

> Ian, just to add a few period sources in english (after translation).
> "Saracen Archery" which is a translation of a Malamute work on archery

I am going to assume you meant Mameluke, the warrior caste from Egypt
and dominant in the Middle East between the ninth and sixteenth
centuries and not "malamute" a breed of Arctic sled dog. :-)

Though I do find the mental picture of hordes of furry canines shooting
bows appealing! :-)

Michael O'Byrne
Montengarde

> from 1365 and "Peri Toxeas" which is a work on archery from ~7th-8th
century
> covering Byzantine archery. This, according to the translator, is the
> earliest known work on archery.
>
> Note that "Toxophillus" is not only one of the first works on archery,
> but was the first book printed in English.
>
> Nicetas
>
> At 08:09 AM 12/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >> Ashams book "Toxophillus" offers some insight, but was
> >> written well after the great age of the longbow and is the writing
of an
> >> academics tutor, not a great military archer. It is a wonderful
book and
> >> a must have for any student of archery.but it is not the final word
or
> >> by any means the complete story. We all seem to quote from it as if
it
> >> is the word of God. It is just another source. -Geoffrei
> >
> >Just a note...
> >As far as I know, the Toxophillus is the only period source
> >in English, for those of us also playing the A&S game,
> >although there is one translated 'Arab Archery' book (the
> >original is from around 1500) which is worth finding. Which
> >is not to say there isn't other good Medieval imput, but
> >it's single pictures or accounts of battles, mostly.
> >If I recall correctly, Ascham suggests going to the fletcher
> >for good arrows, and doesn't get into arrow making in any
> >detail. So I guess it's mostly conjecture for us - sigh.
> >--
> >Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe, OP
> >Known as a forester of the Greenwood, Midrealm
> > http://web.raex.com/~agincort
> >
> >
> >Get medieval at Mad Macsen's
> >http://www.MedievalMart.com/
> >
> >Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
> >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------- eGroups
Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/581373/_/975767441/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_
->
>
> Get medieval at Mad Macsen's
> http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
> Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
> [Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>

jrosswebb1@webtv.net

Michael O Byrne wrote: I am going to assume you meant Mameluke, the warrior caste from Egypt and dominant in the Middle East between the ninth and sixteenth

Message 4 of 12
, Dec 2, 2000

0 Attachment

Michael O'Byrne wrote:
I am going to assume you meant Mameluke, the warrior caste from Egypt
and dominant in the Middle East between the ninth and sixteenth
centuries and not "malamute" a breed of Arctic sled dog. :-)
Though I do find the mental picture of hordes of furry canines shooting
bows appealing! :-)
Michael O'Byrne
Montengarde

Response:
Horde? or TUCHUX?
(no offense to my many friends in the Tuchux, but you do call each other
"dogs")
-Geoffrei

Greetind to Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe and the list. Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book Toxophillus is a tertiary source how should an A&S

Message 7 of 12
, Dec 3, 2000

0 Attachment

Greetind to Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe and the list.

Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book "Toxophillus" is a
tertiary source
how should an A&S "Judge" judge a conjecture? This is a serious question.

James Cunningham

We all seem to quote from it as if it is the word of God. It is just another
source. -Geoffrei

So I guess it's mostly conjecture for us - sigh.

Bruce R. Gordon

... Greetings Ascham? A tertiary source? I can t see how. He wrote in period (1540 s) on a period topic. That makes him a primary source as far as I am

Message 8 of 12
, Dec 3, 2000

0 Attachment

"James W. Pratt Jr." wrote:

> Greetind to Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe and the list.
>
> Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book "Toxophillus" is a
> tertiary source
> how should an A&S "Judge" judge a conjecture? This is a serious question.
>
> James Cunningham

Greetings
Ascham? A tertiary source? I can't see how. He wrote in period (1540's) on a
period topic. That makes him a primary source as far as I am concerned. Not only
that, but he wrote in an understandable language, which is pure bonus. He is
certainly not the end-all and be-all on the subject, and he has really annoying
habits of not commenting on vital topics, but he is still invaluable for archery
research.
Most research is conjecture, really. What makes it useful is that it is
informed conjecture; conjecture with a solid grounding in fact. That grounding
is itself based on source material, both primary and secondary. And tertiary
too, for a broad and general overview. Ascham remains one of the very best in
sources.

> period topic. That makes him a primary source as far as I am concerned.

Scott Jaqua

... From: James W. Pratt Jr. Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book Toxophillus is a tertiary source how should an A&S Judge judge a

Message 10 of 12
, Dec 4, 2000

0 Attachment

----- Original Message -----
From: James W. Pratt Jr.

Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book "Toxophillus" is a
tertiary source
how should an A&S "Judge" judge a conjecture? (snip)

Njall replies;

I would have to consider Toxophillus to be a secondary source at worst. And
if I were writing a research paper that involved conjecture about the period
mind set, I would have to consider it a primary source. It is far better
then tertiary for the following reasons

It's written in period by an actual observer. Ascham is an actual observer,
because while he is an academic, he is also recorded to be an archer
himself. While not a military archer, he held archery as good exercise for
the body and spirit. He took this advice to heart and both he and his
students (read a young Elizabeth the1st) learned to shoot. I believe he
proves his first hand knowledge of the subject in how he records what takes
place during practice at the butts.

Further study of his work should revel that the book shows the two different
sides of Ascham life. Because it is written as a dialog between a lover of
archery and a lover of learning.
I would be hard pressed to classify Ascham as ONLY a academic.

Njall (who prides himself on having a literate persona)

jrosswebb1@webtv.net

Njall replies; (heavily edited) I would have to consider Toxophillus to be a secondary source at worst. ... It is far better then tertiary for the following

Message 11 of 12
, Dec 4, 2000

0 Attachment

Njall replies;
(heavily edited)
"I would have to consider Toxophillus to be a secondary source at worst.
... It is far better then tertiary for the following reasons
It's written in period by an actual observer. Ascham is an actual
observer,"

< This is not entirely true. Although Ascham is period to the SCA his
life began at the end of the great age of the British longbow.The
Hundred Years War was over a century before and The War of the Roses
which is responsible for killing off the great war archers of Britain
was almost half a century earlier.>

Njall continues:
".....Further study of his work should revel that the book shows the two
different sides of Ascham life. Because it is written as a dialog
between a lover of archery and a lover of learning.
I would be hard pressed to classify Ascham as ONLY a academic."

< And what a wonderful man he must have been and what a wonderful
gift to archery he gave us. He wrote about this subject that is so dear
to all of us from a point of view that is CLOSER to the great period of
the longbow than we are. William Shakespeare was much closer than we
also. He was genius, but his account of Agincourt must be treated with
a very critical view of the facts as we
know them. As students and lovers of history, we must put it all in the
mix, Ascham, Shakespeare, the records from the Tower of London, the
manuscript illustrations,the poets, the period accounts of battle, the
recent finds, and see if we can make an educated GUESS. Because there
are contradictions up the WAZOO.
I love Ascham's book as I've stated before and use it to refer to
regularly. But, it is not THE GOSPEL of medieval archery, though it's
one of the better sources we have. We are all speculating here, with a
handful of facts that are universally accepted, the rest of the answers
to our questions are still out there somewhere. Maybe some day more
light will be shed on the subject of medieval archery. Look at how the
facts changed within the last forty years due to the efforts of the Mary
Rose Trust.
-Geoffrei

Bruce R. Gordon

... Greetings Ok, maybe a little digression on research catagories is in order here... Sources come in three flavours; primary, secondary, tertiary. A primary

Message 12 of 12
, Dec 4, 2000

0 Attachment

Scott Jaqua wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James W. Pratt Jr.
>
> Not to change the thread to much... if Ashams book "Toxophillus" is a
> tertiary source
> how should an A&S "Judge" judge a conjecture? (snip)

Greetings
Ok, maybe a little digression on research catagories is in order here...
Sources come in three flavours; primary, secondary, tertiary. A primary
source is a text (normally untranslated) that was written in period, or an
artifact of the period under study. A secondary source is an edited and/or
translated primary, or a text which uses primary sources to make it's point or
describe it's field of study. A tertiary source is a general overview of a
topic, one which uses secondary sources to base it's conclusions or
descriptions.
An encyclopedia article on the history of archery is tertiary. Robert
Hardy's book "Longbow" is secondary, as would be Payne-Gallwey's work "The
Crossbow". Ascham is definitely primary, as would be actual bows, quarrels, etc.
sitting in museums.
This is all a simplification, but that's it basically. What needs to be
recognized next, though, is that the distinction between primary and secondary
is somewhat blurry, and prone to interpretation to a degree. Ascham is written
in early modern English. Does it become secondary if I translate it into modern
20th century English? Most would say yes. Is Gervase Markham's work "The Art of
Archerie", published in 1614, secondary? Markham was about 46 years old then,
and was writing in the light of experience garnered in his twenties and
thirties, ie. in period (just barely).
A further problem is this: how accurate is Ascham (written in the 1540's)
regarding early archery of, say, the time of Agincourt (130 years before)? That
is a real can of worms because on the one hand you have to assume that some
changes took place over the span of two centuries between the golden age and
Aschams age of encroaching decadence. But on the other hand we know that tackle
from 1350 was pretty close to identical to tackle of 1550: bowyers in Aschams
day practiced about the same as their great great great grandfathers.
The fact is, is that primary sources need to be examined and evaluated just
as much as any other source; in some ways more so. Just because it's primary
doesn't mean it's infallible.
Ascham is primary, but to understand period archery you need to look a lot
further than just his book.